Below, I attach two papers by judge jan doogue, presented in 2003 and 2004, one supporting that judges should give (almost illegal?) support to mother abductors and the other suggesting that maybe father’s relationships with their children are being damaged without reason by familycaught.
When reading these papers, keep in mind the quality and skills for “weighing evidence” in familycaught! When you consider the absence of reliable evidence in most cases, then the ideas propounded by judge doogue can be seen to be highly hazardous to family relationships (I would suggest family vandalism?)
Lets apply common sense to obtain a working familycaught.
Best regards,
MurrayBacon
Notes:
2003(6) mother abductors are about 85%, not 70% as stated.
2003(7) read this carefully and make your own judgement.
>
>
2003
>
SECTION 13(1)(c) DEFENCES UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP
AMENDMENT ACT 1991
The Climate following DP v Commonwealth Central Authority; Re S
(Abduction: Custody Rights); E.S. v Secretary for Justice.
Judge Jan Doogue, Family Court, Auckland
INTRODUCTION
1. This paper deals with those cases where it is asserted by an abducting parent
that a child’s return to the country of habitual residence will either expose the
child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation because of domestic violence.
2. Social developments and recent legal developments in Australia, United
Kingdom and New Zealand have converged to make this an extremely
problematic and challenging area of the law for practitioners advising clients,
and for Judges determining cases. Some legal commentators argue that The
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980
(the abduction convention) convention now puts at risk some children in
abduction cases involving domestic violence.
3. In this paper, I will review recent decisions where the difficult tension
between the abduction convention and the changing demographic of
abductors and reasons for abductions has been grappled with by Courts, with
particular emphasis on the trans-tasman situation in New Zealand and
Australia.
BACKGROUND
4. When the abduction convention was first formulated, the usual abductor was
a non-custodial parent and a father. Since then, there has been a significant
change in the profile of the “abductor”. Lowe and Perry (1) did a comparison
between the profiles of abductors between 1987 and 1996. They found a
considerable shift in the ratio of mother to father abductors. This was
confirmed by the statistical analysis of applications made in 1999 and
presented by Lowe (2) for the attention of the Special Commission at The
Hague in March 2001.
5. On the basis of that analysis Lowe found that globally 70 percent of abductors
were now mothers.
6. Judicial recognition of this change was given recently in TB v JB
(Abductions: Grave Risk of Harm) (3) by Hale LJ wherein she stated:
LexisNexis Professional Development Child Law Conference 2003 — Judge Jan Doogue Paper Page 2
“Now, however, in 70 percent of cases, the abductor is the
primary carer: the parent who has always looked after the
children, upon whom the children rely for all their basic needs,
and with whom their main security lies. The other parent is
using the Hague Convention essentially to protect his rights of
access”.
7. Whilst not all primary carer abductions have a history of violence or abuse
against the mother or child, it would appear that very many do. In a
significant number of such cases, the eventual outcome will be that the child,
if returned to the state of habitual residence, will legally be allowed to leave
that country with the primary carer. If the relocation is not sanctioned by the
Court, custody is most often granted to the primary carer in any event.

This paper continues in the comments section……..